7月14日の拉致関連記者会見抜粋（クリス・ヒル 於 湯本冨士屋ホテル）

　7月の14日にクリストファーヒルは箱根の湯本富士屋ホテルに投宿しましたが、その際に記者会見が開かれています。

　随分と長い記者会見であったようなので全体を紹介することはよしますが、一つの切り口で括ってみるとあることがわかる。
ここには主に日本のメディアが参集したわけでしてTBSまで行っているんですが、日本に固有の問題に関して質問した奴は日本のメディアでたった1人だけです。

　固有の問題とは言うまでもなく拉致問題ですが、日本人記者でこの件に関して質問をしたのは北海道新聞のニシムラ　タクヤという記者のみで、しかも、「アメリカが北朝鮮をテロ支援国家リストから外すのか？　外すとしたらばどういうタイミングで外すのか？」こんな程度で、拉致をどうするんだというところには踏み込んでいない。

　これは、この人より前にBloombergのブラッド・マーティンという人がきわめて率直に「一体拉致をどうする気なんだ？」という質問をしているからかもしれませんが、これに対してヒルはさんざご託を並べているんですが、結論は「そうなのよ、拉致は大切な問題なのよ」と言っているに過ぎません、従って突っ込みどころはいくらでもあるんですが、していない。

　そしてなにより、この人より後の質問者、共同の記者May Masangkayさんがめちゃ鋭く切り込んでいるんですね、僕はもう情けなくなりました。

　この人はタイ系かなんかなんでしょうが、この人自身はおそらく、今国務省が進める懐柔路線では拉致問題を解決するどころか進展させることも不可能であるというきわめて常識的な立場に立っているんでしょう。

　さて、この人は拉致問題に関する国務省の二枚舌、つまり「拉致を日本と共有する」と言いながら、なりふり構わず懐柔というよりも妥協路線を突っ走るヒルに対し、「拉致問題が解決しない限り支援に加わらないと言っている日本をどうするのか？」と切り込んでます。
これに対してヒルは「日本が言ってるのは【進展】なのよ、術語的にここ大事！！」とヌケヌケと言ってる。

　このあたりに安倍総理や麻生さんや塩崎がいつの間にか「解決」を「進展」に言い換えたからくりが見て取れますが、このヒルの一次回答に対してこのMayさんは、謙虚に「そうなんですか？　では日本エネルギー支援に参加することを納得する落とし所をどの辺に考えているんですか？」、「日本が参加しないと６カ国協議の枠組みが壊れますね。」、「進展というなら進展で良いんだけど、日本が納得できる進展とはどういう状態を想定しているのか？」と聞き返してます。
そしてヒルはこの問いに対してはなんら納得できる回答はしてません、まぁ当然と言えば当然ですが。

以下本文抜粋

QUESTION:
Brad Martin from Bloomberg News.
A hang-up seems to be the abduction problem. How would you recommend to solve that? There is talk that maybe the Red Army guys might be turned over. What's your thinking?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL
Well, as you know, that's a very -- You're asking a very general question about an issue that I think has been with us for some time and is obviously a great concern to the Japanese Government, the Japanese people and, frankly speaking, the American Government and the American people.
So this is an issue which -- like some others -- I think is expected to be addressed within the bilateral elements of the Six-Party process. I know that when the Japanese-DPRK meeting took place in Hanoi it was raised. I gather there was not a lot of progress on it. I think it is something that does need to be addressed.
We're hopeful as we go further in this process that it will be addressed. This is an extremely difficult issue for the families of these people, and it's our view that this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Now how it is done and what the resolution is, I can't say at this point how it will be done. But certainly we believe that it's something that obviously cannot be ignored in this process. So we will see as we go forward.
I think, clearly, in the long run countries cannot choose their neighbors. And the DPRK has a neighbor in Japan, and I think it's clearly in the DPRK's interest to reach out and figure out how to get along with Japan and how to deal with Japan.
So, again, there's really no new thoughts on this, except that it's obviously an issue that has to be addressed.

QUESTION:
My name is Takuya Nishimura with Hokkaido Shimbun newspaper.
Based on the notion that North Korea seems to be willing to shut down the Yongbyon facility or other nuclear facilities, how do you see the situation of their implementation of removing North Korea from the terrorist-supporting country list of the United States? And what is your idea of the situation of this issue at the end of the term of initial action?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:
Well, as you recall, in the February statement we agreed to begin this process. We agreed to begin the process of removing them from this list of state sponsors of terrorism. I think we will ?
Obviously this is an issue we're going to be dealing with in this coming phase. I'm not prepared at this time to tell you precisely when it will happen. I think it will depend on some actions on the DPRK side, and it's something that will emerge in the context of the negotiations. So I don't want to tell you right now exactly what our plan is and what we are seeking from the DPRK -- because that would be kind of negotiating through the media, which we never do. Believe me, we know all about this issue. We know all about how it would, in our view, fit into the goals we all would like to achieve, and we're going to deal with it in the coming weeks and months. But I'm not prepared to tell you precisely how we'll do it at this point.

QUESTION:
May Masangkay from Kyodo News.
Sir, you mentioned about energy a while ago. I was wondering, every time you come to Japan you repeatedly stress the importance of the abduction issue and all that, but Japan has repeatedly said that it won't provide energy unless there is resolution of the abduction issue.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:
I think they said, I think the term of art was "progress."

QUESTION:
Progress on the abduction issue and -- Well, the abduction issue is a very complicated issue, and it's really hard to find a way to find progress. So I was wondering how you see things going. How are you going to reconcile the fact that ? I mean how are you going to, if Japan doesn't keep, doesn't take part in energy, I'm sure it's going to somehow endanger the energy progress, I mean the energy process -- the support of the united front of the six parties to provide energy to North Korea. And, well, what I wanted to ask was that if there is no progress on the abduction issue, Japan won't provide energy aid. How concerned is the United States with this stance, and how are you going to convince Japan to give aid?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:
Well, better put, how are we going to convince the DPRK to make progress on this very difficult, very emotional, very real problem that has arisen in this bilateral relationship - So rather than say what are we going to do if it fails, why don't we say: How are we going to support this? And I think I have made it very clear to the DPRK on many occasions that I think a good relationship -- they need a good relationship with Japan. As I said, you can choose a lot of things in life, but you usually can't choose your neighbors. And so you have to figure out ways to get along with your neighbors. You have to respect the issues that your neighbors have and try to look for ways to resolve it. And I think it's very much in the DPRK's interest, having acknowledged that this happened, I think it's very important for them to be transparent about it, and figure out all the details, and make sure that everything is clearly accounted for and, if there are people there, that they should obviously all be returned. So I think it's just part of what we're trying to do in the overall process here in the Six Parties -- which is not just deal with denuclearization, not just deal with energy, but deal with, I think, the broader issues of relations among states in Northeast Asia. So I'm just not going to stand here and tell you what I'm going to do if this fails, because I think it has to succeed.